https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/
And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. They ignore that the code is on GitHub, and as long as you're not trying to make money with it, then do whatever you want with it. I don't like the idea of companies getting code for free and giving nothing back. I do like to support people who want my software for personal use.
Could just... not say that it is open source when it is not. The widely used definition of open is not limiting the usage of the code, not "just" showing the source code.
"All rights reserved" code is still all rights reserved even if you put the code out there.
> I don't like the idea of companies getting code for free and giving nothing back.
Doesn't GPL/AGPL prevent that enough?
I have literally only seen Free Software folks claiming this in similar discussions to this, and have not once seen that term used in practice (I'm sure you can find at least one example, but it's far from being common). The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not.
And corporations that try to get some free marketing and code I guess.
The term is clear - lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. If you put any limitations, whether noncommercial, "not for evil" etc. it stops being open.
It's not hard. If you close a door, it's not open anymore.
Except the GPL has a huge limitation (can only be used in GPL code) which "closes the door" to a lot of uses, and yet it's the gold standard.
Well, the typical term coming from people who don't understand the terms. That's why there is a need to explain them, repeatedly.
What next, gotta call Windows "open source"?
Just wait. That's coming.
People who use "open source" for "source-available" don't seem to have another word for what is actually called "open source". What does that mean? Do they just use whatever code they find online the way they want? They surely use open source code, so somehow they should have a need for a word that design open source software.
To me, "sugar" means cane sugar, so I should be able to call food that's full of HFCS "sugar free".
> “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions.
The term was perfectly clear before people like you tried to conflate it by throwing bullshit terms like "libre software"
If your source is available, tell people that your source is available. If you're not going to charge for your software, call it "free software" if you want to confuse people, say it's available for free if you don't. Otherwise I'm going to start selling apples that are 30% plastic as organic.
I mostly agree, although I don't think they have to use the official licenses to qualify for the terms. Your license does have to adhere to the underlying principles those official licenses are built on, though!
And this is where things fall down a bit, because too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them.
Agreed. But the solution is to educate them :).
And here is where I'm a bit selfish -- after many years of doing that and ending up in countless emotional arguments with people who want the terms to mean things they objectively do not mean, I've grown weary of the fight. That, in the end, is why I've stopped doing that.
I don't say that thinking it's the right thing. I say that just out of plain, weary, honesty.
"Source-available" means that you can see the source code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. If I make a library, publish the source code online, and do NOT add a license, then you are not allowed to use it.
"Open-source" means more, including (among others) free redistribution and derived works: https://opensource.org/osd/. If I make a library an publish the source code under an open source license (permissive or not), then you can use it under the conditions of that license.
"Free/Libre" means that the end-user keeps the open source rights, i.e. the rights to view and modify the free/libre code running in the product they bought. If you build a product by assembling permissive-licensed libraries, you can sell it as proprietary code (with some attribution). So your customers have somehow "lost" some of the open source rights you got. If you build a product by assembling copyleft-licensed libraries, then you need to provide those libraries to your customers; they kept their rights.
There’s been a lot of effort to conflate those terms over the years.
I’m saying that there is a large amount of software out there that calls itself open source but that doesn’t meet these terms.
The usual qualifier for software with available source code is source-available. There's no doubt about it.
We really don't need even more confusion around the terms of free software and open source than we already have.
The two I remember (Mongo and Elastic) were shat on for their license change and fake open source.
Assuming no evil intents, MongoDB might have been confused themselves, genuinely thinking the SSPL was actually open source, since they tried to submit it for approval to the OSI. At the time it was unclear the license was not open source, even if some people immediately noticed issues with it.
Right, they mean that, as a user, you are not free to use the software for any purpose, nor are you free to change it in any way. Whether open source is morally/ethically better is separate from its definition.
It's fine for you to say you only want to support non-commercial use, but if you call it "Open Source" it dilutes the definition.
Lots of source available projects are not open source. The source code being available on GitHub means that the source is available, not that it is open. I can post my copyrighted source code only permits me to use it in a project on GitHub. That doesn't make it open.
> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking).
It doesn't say "modify", but it says "use [...] through the GitHub Service". I wonder if that means that all the code publicly available on GitHub can be used (but not modified) even if there is no license?
Even in this time left: I'm in a choir that does not make any profit. Can we use your NC software even if we pay our director or if we make people coming to our concerts pay? In doubt I would not.
You could make your code open source copyleft (so people cannot lock you out by building closed software from your code), and distribute binaries with a more restrictive license that people who need to use them commercially need to pay. As such you have your free software, people with commercial needs give back by paying you and people with non commercial needs can use your software for free. People with commercial needs could compile your software from source but probably won't and probably be happy to pay you a few bucks.
I work for a software company that develops an open source wiki enginr (XWiki) and also sell paid GPL'd extension. People actually pay. It helps founding further developments on the wiki engine and the extensions. See also premium WordPress extensions, or open source apps on the Play Store that are downloadable for a few bucks. As a dev, it's gratifying and your users' liberties are respected. I can't recommend this model enough. It can also enable commercial users to contribute code instead of having to find alternatives and directing their money elsewhere. I really believe an open source license can greatly benefit you and your software, helping a community to gather around it. NC will strongly limit how big this community can be.
You could also make your binaries downloadable for a fee for everyone and send them for free to whoever sends you a message telling you they want to use your software in a non commercial setting.
In any case, you do you and that's already very nice to provide the source code.
Using dubious marketing for a software product that isn't free for all uses would only tarnish the reputation of open source projects that ARE free. Eventually you get a company where someone was familiar with a lawsuit and makes a rule where using open source code is forbidden. Is that the path you want to go down?
So there's another point of confusion/disagreement.
I don't recall open source ever meaning "no restrictions." Copyleft, for example, is OSS with the restriction that any future use must also be OSS and copyleft.
Every place I've ever worked treats OSS in exactly the same way as closed-source software. You don't get to just use it based on your own judgement as a dev. You have to request to use it, which involves providing the license it is under to legal and getting their approval.
In most cases, legal will require a commercial license to be purchased if that's an option (even for OSS) because they value the legal certainty more than the cost of the commercial license.
"PolyForm is not… Open source or free software."
So what's the matter with just defending that position? Or ignoring those who don't read? People are allowed to not like software that's not open source. (And open source DOES have a particular definition. Which is very much not, "it's on github so it must be open source!")
This seems quite abusive. If I notice that using your software put people at risk of infringing some patent, I should be free to warn people about it.
Usually patent clauses are revoked when the user sues the author over patent infringement and this is arguably already bad (though I have no sympathy for patents, one could argue that it's fair game).
But this clause is quite nasty.
In the end, it's hard work to actually enforce any license and can cost a lot of time, energy and money.
That said, I would trust any OSI or FSF-approved license, they've been reviewed by a lot of people including lawyers. but this one does not seem very solid.